Thomas A. Droleskey on the Lies of Protestantism

Protestantism is founded on many lies: (1) That Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did not create a visible, hierarchical Church. (2) That there is no authority given by Our Lord to the Pope and his bishops and priests to govern and to sanctify the faithful. (3) That each believer has an immediate and personal relationship with the Savior as soon as he makes a profession of faith on his lips and in his heart, therefore being perpetually justified before God. (4) Having been justified by faith alone, a believer has no need of an intermediary from a non-existent hierarchical priesthood to forgive him his sins. He is forgiven by God immediately when he asks forgiveness. (5) This state of justification is not earned by good works. While good works are laudable, especially to help unbelievers convert, they do not impute unto salvation. Salvation is the result of the profession of faith that justifies the sinner. (6) That grace is merely, in the words of Martin Luther, the snowflakes that cover up the "dungheap" that is man. (7) That there is only one source of Divine Revelation, Sacred Scripture. (8) That each individual is his own interpreter of Sacred Scripture. (9) That there is a strict separation of Church and State. Princes, to draw from Luther himself, may be Christians but it is not as a Christian that they ought to rule. These lies have permutated in thousands of different directions. However, they have sewn the fabric of the modern state and popular culture for nearly 500 years (I shudder to think how the Vatican is going to commemorate the 500th anniversary of Luther's posting his 95 theses on the church doors in Wittenberg fourteen years from now).

Here below are explanations of these lies and their multifaceted implications for the world in which we live:

(1-2) The contention that Our Lord did not create a visible, hierarchical church vitiates the need for a hierarchical, sacerdotal priesthood for the administration of the sacraments. It is a rejection of the entirety of the history of Christianity prior to the Sixteenth Century. It is a denial of the lesson taught us by Our Lord by means of His submission to His own creatures, Saint Joseph and the Blessed Mother, in the Holy Family of Nazareth that each of us is to live our entire lives under authority, starting with the authority of the Vicar of Christ and those bishops who are in full communion with him. The rejection of the visible, hierarchical church is founded on the prideful belief that we are able to govern ourselves without being directed by anyone else on earth. This contention would lead in due course to the rejection of any and all religious belief as necessary for individuals and for societies. Luther and Calvin paved the way for Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the French Revolution that followed so closely the latter's deification of man.

(3-6) Baptism is merely symbolic of the Christian's desire to be associated with the Savior in the amorphous body known as the Church. What is determinative of the believer's relationship with Christ is his profession of faith. As the believer remains a reprobate sinner, all he can do is to seek forgiveness by confessing his sins privately to God. This gives the Protestant of the Lutheran strain the presumptuous sense that there is almost nothing he can do to lose his salvation once he has made his profession of faith in the Lord Jesus. There is thus no belief that a person can scale the heights of personal sanctity by means of sanctifying grace. It is impossible, as Luther projected from his own unwillingness to cooperate with sanctifying grace to overcome his battles with lust, for the believer to be anything other than a dungheap. Thus a Protestant can sin freely without for once considering that he has killed the life of sanctifying grace in his soul, thereby darkening his intellect and weakening the will and inclining himself all the more to sin-and all the more a vessel of disorder and injustice in the larger life of society.

(7-8) The rejection of a visible, hierarchical Church and the rejection of Apostolic Tradition as a source of Divine Revelation protected by that Church leads in both instances to theological relativism. Without an authoritative guide to interpret Divine Revelation, including Sacred Scripture, individual believers can come to mutually contradictory conclusions about the meaning of passages, the precise thing that has given rise to literally thousands of Protestant sects. And if a believer can reduce the Bible, which he believes is the sole source of Divine Revelation, to the level of individual interpretation, then there is nothing to prevent anyone from doing the same with all written documents, including the documents of a nation's founding. If the plain words of Scripture can be deconstructed of their meaning, it is easy to do so, say, with the words of a governmental constitution. Theological relativism paved the way for moral relativism. Moral relativism paved the way for the triumph of positivism and deconstructionism as normative in the realm of theology and that of law and popular culture.

(9) The overthrow of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ as it was exercised by His true Church in the Middle Ages by the Protestant concept of the separation of Church and State is what gave rise to royal absolutism in Europe in the immediate aftermath of Luther's handiwork. Indeed, as I have noted any number of times before, it is arguably the case that the conditions that bred resentment on the part of colonists in English America prior to 1776 might never have developed if England had remained a Catholic nation. The monarchy would have been subject in the Eighteenth Century to same constraints as it had in the Tenth or Eleventh Centuries, namely, that kings and queens would have continued to understand that the Church reserved unto herself the right to interpose herself in the event that rulers had done things-or proposed to do things-that were contrary to the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law and/or were injurious of the cause of the sanctification and salvation of the souls of their subjects. The overthrow of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ deposited power first of all in the hands of monarchs eager to be rid of the "interference" of the Church and ultimately in the hands of whoever happened to hold the reins of governmental power in the modern "democratic" state. Despotism has been the result in both cases

Pray tell, since obviously you alone have the answers, what is the true Church? What are you called to believe? What is Christianity? If you wish to take down the only bastion that God gave man to contain revelation, you had better start coming up with answers, quick.

Being a little fecetious are we? I didn't claim to have the answers alone, that is your charge. I found the answers among other Christians. I read my bible and sought out the truth of History. I didn't turn my nose up to anything. I have studied Catholicism since 1988 when I came home from College. It's been a sideline because it is such a massive web of inconsistancies.

History doesn't agree with much of the popular fiction I heard from my school days to the known errors that are repeated commonly even now - because those errors are still taught by catholicism. We hear that Constantine put down the Donatists as an heretical sect. But I pick up five serious histories on constantine and not one of them says that - all of them say the Donatists outlived Constantine. I hear they were heretical, what I read is that the opposite was true, those who were seeking the destruction of the Donatists were heretical in that under persecution they were openly teaching their members to pay tithe and honor the pagan gods of Rome. The Donatists loudly rebuked them for this and it could not be allowed for a sect to so blatently point out the error of another. They had to be silenced. Just as Christ had to be silenced to appease the First century Jewish leaders.

Reading in depth on Constantine betrays one myth after another. It's a great historical scrutiny that paints Catholic teaching on the matter for the lies they are. Arius was defended by Constantine. Read the language of what transpired. He didn't call the first council either, he compelled attendance by the Bishops to settle the matter and under threat disallowed their absence till the matter was settled. He did so as emperor, not as head of the church. And he did so because the unity of this major collection of disperate but similar sects was required for civil rest. The empire was held only loosely together and their disunity was a threat to his rule. There goes the pretense at holiness right out the window - eh. Then Constantine has the nerve to fight for a broad language which ultimately enraged the bishops. But Arius argued for strict language and smacked Constantine verbally in retort at his suggestion of the broad language. Constantine kept the council of Arians - his closest council actually and favored them - even favored Arius; but, Arius verbal mistreatment demanded response and Arius was Banished. Banished because Constantine liked him but wouldn't put up with him. And Banished because unity must be had - but for his empire's sake, not that of the church. You might read up on what happened to his sect.

We hear that Constantine was a Christian; but, critical review of his life belies that. He spent his life as emperor serving his pagan rite - that of the soldier - Mithraism. He served that right till he died and was enterred under pagan rites intended to make him a god in the afterlife. The popular fiction of his Christianity was no doubt erected by Eusebius. There are those present that know my regard for Eusebius - a dime novel has more truth in it. And among historians - that is known, understood and accounted for.. all but Catholic Historians who hold him up as the end all be all. His popular fictions were used to bring Catholicism to the forefront. It wasn't by mistake. The power plays that built from the time of Constantine between emperor and church gained steam and ultimately ended up in the Roman rite defrauding Constantine's name and the known world with the Donation document.

We're only talking about one short period of history in large part here centered around one man. And everywhere one looks, the Catholic church has erected popular lies. There is a purpose for the lies and there has always been a purpose for them. And it is the reason that to this day they cannot be admitted even in the face of blatent evidence.

So what do I believe? I believe what the Apostles gave me as given them by Christ. I read as did the Bereans and as they did, I throw out the lies, ignore the half truths and keep to what I can prove rather than hearsay and popular opinion. I keep to the covenant and reject men's attempts to ammend that which God wrote and sealed. Man didn't author the covenent. Man was given no authority to change it. And as one man to another, I ask you a question. By what fraudulent notion does man claim the right to alter it?!

Christianity is the collection of those people who are born again, baptised in the Holy spirit and following Christ. It isn't an organization. It isn't a club with rules voted into being. It isn't an hierarchical kingdome. It's head is Christ. His representatives are all the true Christians. I've taken down nothing - much less a Bastion of anything. What your leaders erected they erected for and by themselves. Leave God out of it. God didn't tell them to use fraudulent epistles, hundreds of fraudulent documents, false histories, false icons and relics on and on to - LIES to prop up the Glory of a God who needs no such propping up. Christians are the salt of the earth; but, Christ is the light of it.

Where is the truth? Does it lay with people who lie constantly about history? Does it lay with people who don't know that Binding and loosing is an judicial and not executive function? I mean, if they don't even understand the roots of their own faith, who are they to pretend they can tell me? Ecclesiastes says when men die, whether righteous or evil, they share a common fate - they can no longer have anything to do in death with the things that go on here on Earth. No ifs ands or buts. They're finished and restricted from partaking in the goings on here. Your church teaches not only the opposite; but, teaches it with a flourish that sets the old testement denunciations against communication with the deadn and idolatry on their collective ear. Where is the truth.

I set my banner in the house of God with the scripture and with the truth of History. And I have not done so alone. Narrow is the way and Few are they that enter in - because truth hurts. Truth is unpopular. Truth is political risk. Truth is a stumbling stone to the ambitions of men. But it is to be prized above all things. And if the truth be not in your church, then I can and will have no part of it. I'm not going to lie to myself or anyone else to impress you or anyone else. If you're 12 years old or 10,000 years old and you're a liar, your age makes you a very young or very old liar; but a liar nonetheless. Age, size, popularity, etc have nothing to do with it. Christ defined the Church and what would follow it. Catholicism created it's own definition because it seems it couldn't live up to Christ's.. why do you think that is?

Please explain how it is that Protestants have the gift of the Holy Spirit when they disagree *doctrinally* on:
* Whether infant baptisms are efficacious
* Whether baptisms without immersion are efficacious
* Whether infants who die go to Heaven or Hell by default
* Whether divorce is permissable
* Whether gay sex is permissable
* Whether premarital sex constitutes adultery
* Whether Christ established a priesthood
* Whether Christ established an episcopate
* Whether one must receive Christ in the Eucharist
* Whether Christ exists in the Eucharist
* Whether praying in tongues is necessary, beneficial, or evil
* Whether tradition is a valid consideration in interpreting the bible
* Whether the Sabbath occurs on the 7th or 1st day
* Whether works are a necessary sign of faith, or whether mere sincere, proclamation of faith is sufficient
* Whether one can "lose" grace
* Whether confimation is necessary
* Whether marriage occurs merely as a state function, or whether it must occur as a sacrament
* Whether ordination is required to serve as a minister or pastor

I could go on and on and on and on.

See, Protestants always portray these things as Protestant vs. Catholic thing, but the truth is the number of people who agree on any set of doctrines, no matter how essential, is infinitessimal. None of these issues are trifling. If a Church cannot assertively teach any of them, the Church can fail to bring certain of its members to grace. Many Catholics dissent from the Catholic Church's teachings, but *what* those teachings are is not mistaken by those who conform with the Church's authority.

You are "born-again" when you are baptised, as this washes away Original Sin and makes you a child of God.

OH???

NIV Romans 1:1-5
1. Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God--
2. the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures
3. regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,
4. and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
5. Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

Hold this thought...............

NIV Romans 9:30-32
30. What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;
31. but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.
32. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

NIV Romans 10:11-13
11. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
12. For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
13. for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

NIV Romans 15:15-16
15. I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me
16. to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Not a bunch of 'other' stuff...........

NIV Romans 15:18-20
18. I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done--
19. by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ.
20. It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation.

(rats!! What about 'tradition?!?!?)

NIV Galatians 1:15-17
15. But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased
16. to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man,
17. nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

NIV Galatians 2:2
2. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.

I did not consult any man, kinda throws that 'hierarchy' thing out the window!

NIV Galatians 3:7-9
7. Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.
8. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."
9. So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

NIV Galatians 3:14
14. He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

NIV 1 Timothy 2:5-7
5. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6. who gave himself as a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time.
7. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle--I am telling the truth, I am not lying--and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

But... what about priests and popes and Mary and.........

I didn't read most of this drivel. I stopped right after the claim that Catholicism was given its name after the "Donation of Constantine." THe authr was off by 1,000 years.

Well, I can tell you got nothing from what you did read because you lied about what I said or just utterly got it wrong. I didn't say it was named after the use of the donation of Constantine. I said it got it's name, and historically so, from Theodosius who defined the church of the empire and gave it it's name as a matter to unify the disperate sects warring within. What Constantine started with mild force, Theodosius finished with an iron fist and at once proclaimed that anyone not toing the line would be considered henceforth to be heretical.

Prior to this, the proper name "Catholic" never appeared. There are admittedly countless documents produced in attempt to say otherwise; but, these arose in the time of the power grab of the Roman rite over that sect. The Donation was but one among about a hundred complete and partial forgeries including Gracian that were employed to seize power over the entire Catholic institution. It rather caused a schizm because the lies were known at the time for what they were.

I'm glad you at least admitted you didn't bother to read. That is why you don't know. Try reading. And don't just accept my word for it, go digging. Taking someone's word for it is what got you where you are now.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.